Passivism/ Martyrdom vs. duty to defend oneself

[KathleenElsie]

I suspect many who feel self defense is a duty, also feel an obligation to protect their “neighbors”. Once I saw a statistic on it, but now it is only a slight memory - but it is almost guaranteed that if you flee, the robber/mugger/burglar will find another victim. Likewise, there was a VERY high probability, that the criminal will eventually kill during one of those subsequent activities. Without intervention (usually incarceration), this type of criminal activity escalates.

Anyway, stopping rather than fleeing saves the next victim. Are you responsible for your neighbors death because you fled?

Well said. We are responsible for protecting others if we are capable of doing so. Isn’t that what the good Samaritan was all about?

 

[KathleenElsie]

Ridiculous conclusion. If someone is shooting at me, I’ll run. That does not mean I don’t oppose the shooter’s action. I’ll to try to find someone qualified i.e. the police, who is.

Newbie2: Have you ever been the one robbed, raped or intimidated? Have you ever seen the bullet hole in the wall just over the head of your sleeping baby? Have you ever had your social security check taken from you by force and tried to get it replaced?

These things go on hourly in our country. We are advised to hire a sitter for our homes when we attend funerals for close family members.

The emergency rooms are overcrowded by the victims of these “non-violent want to be thieves and rapists”. My family has been volunteers for our fire department and ambulance and when we were required to wear Kevlar vests when helping the injured we stopped helping.

The small church I go to in the mornings is now locked most of the time. It is seven miles from my home and in a country that does not support law abiding citizens to carry guns. There have been many muggings of the elderly for their wallets, purses and even packages they are carrying and then they are hit, knocked down and kicked.

We don’t live in a walled and gated community like some that don’t like the fact that we might be armed. When people of any color no longer feel safe living in an area they leave if they can and mostly hide when they can leave. This is no way for anyone to live. Houses become abandoned and boarded up or turned into drug havens.

The areas that are now safer to walk day or night are those were it is known that the people are not afraid to protect themselves and others. In fact my country has been holding evening hours so the law-abiding people can get their concealed carry permit easier.

Gun free zones do not work. Not knowing if the person you want to harm is armed does.

 

[Newbie2]

I see nothing extreme about protecting myself or others from harm.

Christ was extreme. The Gospel is extreme. Dying on a cross for something you didn’t do is extreme.

Protecting life is not extreme - it is expected.

~Liza

Agreed. But the view that failing to shoot at a bad buy is a mortal sin is an extreme view on the protection of life. That is my point.

Newbie2, there is a word that describes your attitude here. Here is a hint, it is not courage.

The fact that you are promoting cowardice, in your close-minded suicidal manner is se5riuosly opposed by Church teaching. Using your logic, there would be no such thing as a just war and being a police officer would be a moral evil. Obviously since you do not think that way, you are not applying your logic correctly. If you want to run and hide, if you want your family to be victimized by attackers, that is your choice. However, do not try to claim that cowering in a closet while your wife is being raped is a moral good.

If you want to call me a coward, please at least have the guts to do so.

The church wants me to face an armed attacker when I myself am unarmed? Are you kidding? I said if someone was shooting at me I’d run away. THAT is preservation of life, no? I choose not to carry a weapon. So I’m a coward for not wanting to do so?

I never said that I would not try to defend my family, or myself, please don’t ascribe such words to me.

And please don’t insult my by putting forth the idea that I would hide in a closet while my wife is being raped. That is WAY beyond insulting. Where you get to there from when I said I’d flee an armed attacker shooting me is beyond my understanding.

Suicide? Where on earth do you get that notion from what I’ve written. Truly bizarre and insulting post there, pal.

Newbie2: Have you ever been the one robbed, raped or intimidated? Have you ever seen the bullet hole in the wall just over the head of your sleeping baby? Have you ever had your social security check taken from you by force and tried to get it replaced?

Nope.

These things go on hourly in our country. We are advised to hire a sitter for our homes when we attend funerals for close family members.

The emergency rooms are overcrowded by the victims of these “non-violent want to be thieves and rapists”. My family has been volunteers for our fire department and ambulance and when we were required to wear Kevlar vests when helping the injured we stopped helping.

The small church I go to in the mornings is now locked most of the time. It is seven miles from my home and in a country that does not support law abiding citizens to carry guns. There have been many muggings of the elderly for their wallets, purses and even packages they are carrying and then they are hit, knocked down and kicked.

We don’t live in a walled and gated community like some that don’t like the fact that we might be armed. When people of any color no longer feel safe living in an area they leave if they can and mostly hide when they can leave. This is no way for anyone to live. Houses become abandoned and boarded up or turned into drug havens.

The areas that are now safer to walk day or night are those were it is known that the people are not afraid to protect themselves and others. In fact my country has been holding evening hours so the law-abiding people can get their concealed carry permit easier.

Gun free zones do not work. Not knowing if the person you want to harm is armed does.

I’m sorry, did I ever say that I was against people who are likely to be victimized carrying a gun to protect themself? (Hint: I didn’t)

I agree, parts of the world can be a dangerous place. I have no problem if someone uses a firearm to protect themself. But the assertion have been made that:

1. If I have a weapon that I am obligated to use it against a bad guy.
2. That I should face down an armed bad guy shooting at me even if I am unarmed and that running away would be cowardice.
3. That failing to protect myself by the use of deadly force is a mortal sin.

I disagree with all of these assertions.

 

[pnewton]

St. Maria Goretti was a victim of an attempted rape and was murdered. Her attacker was a much larger 16 year old boy and she was a petite 12 year old girl. She did not have the capacity to defend herself.

The comparison of the redemptive suffering of Christ on the cross is so inappropriate as to border on blasphemous. Neither you, nor anyone else has answered the point that Christ Himself used violent means to eject the money-changers and merchants from the Temple.

I answered it and you think it blasphemous. You accuse another poster of cowardice. Name-calling and bullying do lend to dialogue.

The parts of the Catechism you quoted made a very important point, one’s pacifism cannot intrude on the rights of others. If your child is being attacked, the claim that you are a pacifist as the reason you did not defend your son would not be reasonable as your son has a right to have his parents to defend him when he is imperiled.

I never said pacifism can intrude on the rights of others. Read the title. Defending one’s family is not defending one’s self.You said

However, refusing to defend yourself or others, and you or they are harmed or killed, would mean that you have violated that commandment by refusing to act

Here you mention both an act of self-defense and a defense of others as if they are one. You throw that strawman example of a parent defending a child, which no one is saying should not be done. Then you reject the examples given.

This exchange can go on forever and it will not change Church teaching one whit. The Catechism does not support that one must defend oneself. All the convolution of logic in the world will not change what the Church teaches. One can follow the example of Christ, even if you think it blasphemy, and fight strength with weakness.

 

[Newbie2]

Let’s start again:

If a bad guy were to rob me at gunpoint, I’d give him my wallet. Anyone have difficulty with that one?

OK.

I choose not to carry a weapon to defend myself. OK with that too?

OK

If I were alone (not with my family or friends) and a bad guy started shooting at me, I’d run.
Any problem with that?

OK

If a guy shot me, and I couldn’t run away, I’d stand and fight, having no other choice. OK with that one too?

OK

If a bad guy were robbing a store, at gunpoint, and I had the opportunity to put myself in harm’s way to stop him, definitely at risk to my own life, I’m not sure if I would do it or not. How about that one?

OK

If my family were being attacked, I’d do whatever I could to protect them. Surely no problem there.

OK

If I were ever beaten up, I would not change my mind and opt to carry a firearm. If I lived in a dangerous neighborhood, I’m not certain if I would or not.

I feel if I follow the above notions, I am not guilty of any sort of mortal sin of omission, am not a coward, am looking after my life and the lives of my family and fellow man reasonably well.

Anyone disagree?

 

[pnewton]

Agreed. But the view that failing to shoot at a bad buy is a mortal sin is an extreme view on the protection of life. That is my point.

I think that is what several of us are trying to do. It is one thing to show the Church’s teaching on just defense and the proper time force must be used. It is quite another to accuse those not like us of sin (and even mortal sin!) for acting in a manner that the Church allows lattitude of conscience. The accusation of cowardice was totally uncalled for and showed a lack of understanding of what true courage is.

BTW - I personally am far from a pacifist and am frequently involved in violence. But we must always respect those who are not like ourselves.

 

[rpp]

I answered it and you think it blasphemous. You accuse another poster of cowardice. Name-calling and bullying do lend to dialogue.

I never said pacifism can intrude on the rights of others. Read the title. Defending one’s family is not defending one’s self.You said
Here you mention both an act of self-defense and a defense of others as if they are one. You throw that strawman example of a parent defending a child, which no one is saying should not be done. Then you reject the examples given.

This exchange can go on forever and it will not change Church teaching one whit. The Catechism does not support that one must defend oneself. All the convolution of logic in the world will not change what the Church teaches. One can follow the example of Christ, even if you think it blasphemy, and fight strength with weakness.

The only bullying on this thread are those who falsely state that the Church does not teach that we have a grave duty in certain situations to defend one self and/or others we are responsible for.

I am through with this thread. Too many hard-hearted people here who refuse to conform their conscience and mind to the teachings of the Church and whose only defense is to twist what others say. As has been said on many threads, if you have to lie and intentionally misconstrue what another has said in support of your position, then your position is unsupportable.

Cowardice is a grave evil. I know what courage is. I suspect that I am one of the few who can say he has run into a burning building to rescue people (I am not a fireman.) and have defended people who were being threatened by an attacker, who was armed and I was not. You who have called I did in these cases evil are seriously wrong.

 

[Sir_Knight]

It is one thing to show the Church’s teaching on just defense and the proper time force must be used. It is quite another to accuse those not like us of sin (and even mortal sin!) for acting in a manner that the Church allows lattitude of conscience.

If you have a responsibility to do something and do not perform that responsibility, what is the result? We have a responsibility to go to Mass on Sundays and HolyDays of Obligation. The Church calls it a GRAVE duty. Thus failure to go to Mass on Sundays and HolyDays of Obligation is a grave sin. We have a GRAVE duty to protect ourselves and others from death and serious harm, failure to do so is also a GRAVE sin.

Explain how the failure to perform one duty (failure to go to Mass on Sundays and HolyDays of Obligation) is a sin but the failure to defend oneself would not be a grave sin?

Maybe that is where the disconnect is. How can you claim that one is not a grave sin when the other one is?

 

[Sir_Knight]

1. That I should face down an armed bad guy shooting at me even if I am unarmed and that running away would be cowardice.

. . .

I disagree with all of these assertions.

Now you are building strawman arguments in an attempt to twist around what was presented to further your position.

Your ORIGINAL comment was that both of you were armed. If you turn your back on someone who is pointing a gun at you and has evil intentions in an attempt to run away, he will mostlikely shoot you in the back. Not the most prudent thing to do even if your attacker was not armed.

 

[pnewton]

The only bullying on this thread are those who falsely state that the Church does not teach that we have a grave duty in certain situations to defend one self and/or others we are responsible for.

We have a GRAVE duty to protect ourselves and others from death and serious harm, failure to do so is also a GRAVE sin.

rpp has the Church teaching right (that this duty is in certain situations), althought I must have missed where anyone has stated what he claims has been falsely stated. You (again) misquote the CCC.

The example you give of Mass attendence is in the catechism. It is stated directly. This “grave sin” you wish to foister onto other, is not.

 

[lobster]

Do you tell your kids if they are being attacked to stand up to their attacker and fight back instead of fleeing or else if they try and run and are shot dead they are going to hell?

Sir Knight, I asked you the above to which you gave no response.
I take it, when reason disagrees with your claim, you pretend it does not exist. Or are you truly stumped by the question?

 

[lobster]

You are the only one who is talking about killing. The issue is defending yourself using, the Catechism states in one of Sir Knight’s earlier posts, moderate force. The Catechism clearly states that deadly force may be used if needed

To which you do not adequately show that if there is a means of escape, that the ‘if needed’ requirement would still not be met. That is because it will not be needed in that case.

Your insistence that deadly force must be used is both wrong and not what is begin discussed.

Where did I insist deadly force MUST be used? I am arguing against your position the the Church requires us to use force rather even if passive means are available.

By the way, most people who are shot survive the shooting. In fact, when viewed as a percentage, my guess would be that more people receive fatal injuries from an assault by a baseball bat than from being shot.

This is irrelevant.

As for fleeing versus fighting, that really depends on the situation and partly on prudential judgment.

So you are now agreeing that the Church does not require the use of force to stop someone from attacking you?

If you are cornered in your house, is that really an option?

I mentioned earlier that talking the intruder down is possibility, among a myriad of other options. The world is not binary.

While passivity, in general, is not opposed to Church teaching, one cannot choose to ignore a part of the Catechism or Church teaching because they find it distasteful or hard.

Not sure what you are saying. It sounds like you said ‘x’ is not against Church teaching, but you cannot choose not to do ‘x’ because you find the Church’s teaching hard. That makes no sense.

Church teachings are not inherently pacifistic; quite the opposite in some cases and this is one of them. As has been clearly stated, a grave duty requires us to act.

You still have not shown that force (whether deadly or not) is required as opposed to passive means.

 

[lobster]

KathleenElsie:

Me: Since there is no requirement and especially no duty to kill when other means of allaying the situation are available. For example, fleeing the situation is a possibility.

You: Are you sure or do you say OOPS I guessed wrong at the funeral of a loved one? It is not always possible to excape safely. Doing nothing and simply letting the attacker kill you would be wrong. That is where you are confused.

If someone is pointing a gun at me and I choose to run, where does the ‘OOPS I guessed wrong’ come from. There was no loved one being talked about. You are quick to point out that no one mentioned ‘deadly force’. In the same way, I did not mention a loved one in the picture. Also, the requirement of action to stop harm from happening to oneself by another is met by the passive act of fleeing.

I have read through each and every post two times and some of the three times. Not once did anyone say to use deadly force as a first resort. What has been said was to use the force necessary to protect yourself and the others you can be held responsible for. Those that have the means to protect others are expected to do so in the safest and best way available to them at the time of danger.

Define “means to protect others”.

Me: You have not established that the Church requires one to kill their attacker.

You: The Catholic Church does not require you to kill an attacker. It does expect you to protect yourself and those you are required to protect.

Someone is pointing a gun at you. Which of the following would represent a mortal sin according to your interpretation of Catholic teaching?

Stooping down, picking up an apple and throwing at the gunman.

Telling the gun “Look!” while pointing behind him, then jumping him.

Charging him full force before he has time to react.

Turning around and running away.

Breaking down and crying appealing to the gunmans emotions.

Pretending to run away, only to sneak up from behind.

Running across the street and phoning the police.

Me: By fleeing the situation, the evil is prevented from taking place. Therefore no sin of omission. If you are arguing that you must stop the evil intention of the attacker, that is impossible.

You: If you can remove yourself and those you are responsible for safely then by allmeans do so. Many have thought wrongly that they could do this and the results have been tragic.

So everyone that did this, commited a mortal sin according to the Church? Flip it around once. Many have thought wrongly and thought they could jump the gunman, which only amounted to stupidity.

Only God can change ones heart and thus the intention to do evil.

No. God has given us free will. He will never change someones intention. That is heresy.

 

[lobster]

I see nothing extreme about protecting myself or others from harm.

In context of the post you were replying to, you see nothing extreme in shooting a thief in the back as he runs away with your purse. After all, if he gets away, do you believe you are now responsible for the people he kills after the fact? Because of your sin of omission to shoot him in the back? Also do you believe an immoral act is permissible when it could result in good? In this case, he will not be able to rob or harm anyone else?

 

[lobster]

So by failing to preserve your life when you had the ability and opportunity to do so, your final actions in this life may actually be displeasing to God.

So did Jesus commit a mortal sin by failing to preserve His life from His attackers? He had the means, ability, and opportunity to do so.

 

[Newbie2]

Now you are building strawman arguments in an attempt to twist around what was presented to further your position.

Your ORIGINAL comment was that both of you were armed. If you turn your back on someone who is pointing a gun at you and has evil intentions in an attempt to run away, he will mostlikely shoot you in the back. Not the most prudent thing to do even if your attacker was not armed.

I was referring to post #37, where general cowardace and suicidal tendencies were attributed to my position. Perhaps I misunderstood the criticism.

By the way, in post #45, I may have been a bit too subtle by saying “Let’s start again”, in which I meant I’d like to restate my position/comments in order to perhaps be more clear and not rehash what I’d written. Perhaps a bit too subtle?

Any comments on my post #45, SR?

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

Humm? Interesting topic, because right now I’m attending the 1st Cavalry Division Association Annual Reunion there are vets here from WWII to present day, they did their duty, and were lucky enough to come back to the World. From a military point of view you can be court marshaled for failing to do your duty but I know we’re talking about stuff back here in the World.

War Story: My brother was 11B straight leg Infantry in Vietnam; one time the Chaplin was flown out with the hot chow they have been in the jungle for about six days. As soon as they started eating a sniper started shooting at the troops. My brother took the sniper out with an M79 grenade launcher. HOOAH! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M79_grenade_launcher He took away the threat and defended his squad.

What was interesting was he told me he seen the bravest thing he ever seen in his life was after the fire-fight Base Camp radioed that they had to march back in; no chopper. The Chaplin [Catholic Priest] said, “I’ll take the point.” In an Infantry squad or platoon especially in jungle warfare you have a troop take the **point **ahead of the squad to look for danger, and a troop to take drag so no one tries to kill you from the rear.

The more dangerous of the two is **Point **for that Priest to take the point with no weapon took a lot of guts and faith. End of War Story.

A few years later when I first experienced combat was in a jungle [not The Nam] I thought of that Priest? When I got back to the World I check it out; the majority of Chaplins in the United States Military who received the Medal Of Honor are Catholic Priests! The majority of them gave the highest sacrifice to protect their flock. These brave men knew it’s a grave duty. God Bless them.

I believe like those brave Priests I will do everything legally possible to defend my family and innocent people. As head of my household in the 21st century in the United States of America that means being trained in the safe use of firearms to defend my family.

If I don’t do this I am not being responsible! Just like the troopers I’ve trained over the years if I didn’t train them to kill the enemy to the best of my knowledge I should be court marshaled and be jailed for the rest of my life or executed.

**I would not be doing my grave duty! **

It’s the same in the civilian world. So brothers and sisters do your grave duty. FIRST TEAM! HOOAH! GOD BLESS!

 

[Sir_Knight]

The example you give of Mass attendence is in the catechism. It is stated directly. This “grave sin” you wish to foister onto other, is not.

I asked this question before but I’ll ask it again … why would you think that the failure to perform the grave duty of going to Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligations a grave sin but the failure to perform the grave duty of protecting oneself not a grave sin?

 

[Sir_Knight]

lobster;5275109:

Do you tell your kids if they are being attacked to stand up to their attacker and fight back instead of fleeing or else if they try and run and are shot dead they are going to hell?

Sir Knight, I asked you the above to which you gave no response.

I take it, when reason disagrees with your claim, you pretend it does not exist. Or are you truly stumped by the question?

Haven’t I said repeatedly that one needs to have the opportunity and the ability (i.e., the means) to stop their attacker? That goes for kids AND adults. However, as an adult, one is expected to prepare for the responsibilities that one has.

If I lose my job and don’t start looking for work until all of the money runs out and my family is starving, then I have FAILED in my responsibility to care for my family. If I look for work and an unsuccessful in finding it, then I have not failed in my responsibility to care for my family even if the end results are the same because I made an honest effort to care for them.

Just as one does not look for work at the last minute when all of the money ran out, one does not take steps to protect his family at the last minute when somebody is kicking in the door and the phone line has gone dead. In both cases, the responsible thing to do is to prepare before hand and failure to do so IS a sin.

 

[Sir_Knight]

No. God has given us free will. He will never change someones intention. That is heresy.

Then I guess that the Church made a mistake in making St. Monica a saint because it was said that it was through her prayers to God for her son that St. Augustus turned from his wicked life-style. She is even quoted to have said on her death bed – " … My God hath answered this more than abundantly … ".

But according to you, those prayers had no impact whatsoever. And I guess that when the Church tells us to pray for someone’s conversion, that is also “heresy” because according to you, God “will never change someones intention”.